Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Review: "Contagion"

I feel like “disease” movies used to be plentiful enough
to take up a genre all their own. From The
Andromeda Strain to Outbreak,
disease flicks ran rampant at one time, reflecting a worldwide fear that seems
to have died out with the Swine Flu. As a kid I was somewhat concerned about
the Ebola virus. Maybe “concerned” is the wrong word but I was definitely aware
of the disease and vigilant in my quest to make sure I never contracted the
disease. (Seriously, I knew way more about Ebola than any elementary school kid
should ever know.) But I wonder now if pre-adolescents even know what Ebola is.
Somewhere along the line disease movies turned into the zombie movie resurgence
and Hollywood hasn’t looked back since. As a result, I honestly cannot tell you
the last time I watched a movie concerning some sort of virus or outbreak that
did not result in the victims becoming zombies or another undead creature. It
may well be that Outbreak was the
last one I saw (and by the way, there’s nothing wrong with Outbreak; totally acceptable action-thriller). Contagion, then, represents a dying genre that probably needs a
bigger push than what this film is capable of giving.

On a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth
Paltrow) becomes sick. Upon her return home, what she assumed to be a simple
cold begins to ravish her immune system resulting in her husband, Mitch (Matt
Damon), taking her to the hospital, where she quickly dies. Simultaneously
around the globe, others fall ill and die while those who came in contact with
them start showing symptoms. The Center for Disease Control takes note and begins
investigating only to discover that the virus is brand new and boasts a remarkably
high death rate. Before long a worldwide outbreak is underway and it becomes a
race between the rapid spread of the virus and the scientists who are working
to produce a vaccine.

Steven Soderbergh is, in my book, one of Hollywood’s
very, very best directors. He has an outstanding track record and with the
exception of a couple of misfires, he always delivers movies that must be
considered good or better. He is not, however, predictable. He has taken on a
wide range of films in his career, from big budget flicks to barely seen indie
dramas. He basically does whatever project he wants to do and does it his way
with very little regard to how it will be received by critics and audiences.
For example, The Informant! is an odd
film with some bizarre quirks that I personally enjoyed but most people (critics
and moviegoers alike) didn’t know what do to with it. Did that bother
Soderbergh? No, I don’t think it did; he made the film he wanted to make and at
the end of the day, that’s all he really cares about. Contagion is quite similar in that way. It poses as a thriller,
maybe even a horror film, but it plays out almost like a documentary. It is an
INCREDIBLY well-made film with near perfect shot selections and cinematography.
(These behind-the-camera techniques are a big part of what makes Soderbergh so
great.) The narrative, though, is very slow paced and almost burdensomely
methodical, focusing entirely on the virus itself and the search for a cure and
leaving almost no room for character development. It isn’t boring but there’s
not a whole lot happening, either. As such, from a cinematic perspective, Contagion is a great film but as an
experience for the audience, it is only above average.

The lack of humanity is what really holds Contagion back. Despite an incredible
cast that includes Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, and Marion Cotillard, there’s
not a single performance in this film that warrants attention. That’s because
the actors are given almost nothing to do, resulting in the feeling that they’re
all just going through the motions. This plays into the documentary feeling but
it also leaves a real disconnect between the screen and the audience. I
honestly can’t decide if this was Soderberg’s intention or if he just failed to
find the mark. Throughout the film’s runtime I kept wanting to buy into the
characters, to care about their plight, but I was never given a reason, either
organic or manufactured, to do so nor scenes that would illicit any attachment.
Characters struggle and die but I didn’t find myself grieving their loss. Near
the very end, we are given two very powerful, human moments (one in which Damon
absolutely nails it) but by this point I had written off this part of the story
and the impact was much less than it should have been. There are numerous
storylines that don’t provide much of a payoff, resulting in an ineffectual use
of the ensemble method. In hindsight, it might have been a better idea to
emphasize a few main characters rather than spread the attention across the
global landscape.

Contagion gets
it right in a number of places and it is easy to see Soderbergh’s hands at
work. There are some spectacular elements within the film that are truly
inspired. But a film is only as strong as its weakest link which in this case
is an utter lack of connection to the viewer. It is good, not great,
worthwhile, but not a must-see.

2 comments:

You're right. It is good, not great, but good! I really liked how Soderbergh showed the way in which the unseen danger kept spreading unassumingly! It was as if the disease was the most interesting character of the entire film!

a good write up today! Are you interested in Soderbergh's next, "Haywire"?